Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:25:14 +0100
Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:43:58 +0000
Diana McPartlin wrote:
> Ken wrote
> > If it is indeed the case that Quality is responsible for the existence
> > of the inorganic static level and is also responsible for the biological
> > static level, the bulk of which occurred before sentience appeared, then
> > it seems to me that we must differentiate between non-sentient Quality
> > and sentient Quality.
> But doesn't P imply that all Quality is sentient?
> There's static sentience and dynamic sentience and the sentience of an
> atom is very different from the sentience of a Texan, but they are all
> types of experience and consequently value
Diana and Squad.
I agree with your comments to Brett, Luke and Neal, and I do
(principally) agree with what you said to Ken, but a point
or two has to be clarified or it all becomes ridiculous. This
discussion includes Magnus and Theo who also have responded to
Ken's well documented message of June 6. ......And now Fintan and
Jonathan who reacted to your "Atom and Texan" quip.
I virtually see the arguments whizz past each other regarding
Ken's "sentience" term so the first point is to get this concept
sorted out. As I see it he uses it in the "consciousness" (of
SOM) sense while Magnus and Diana sees it in a MOQ (experience is
value) sense.
Theo analyzed it correctly (my dictionary says: able to have
feeling; experiencing sensation) and he also said that it is
virtually a definition of biology itself. Admittedly a single-cell
organism has no sense organs, but it reacts to environmental
(Inorganic) changes: it "senses". So let's keep "sentient"
as the dictionary says and face facts: the MIND skeleton has fallen
out of the closet - again.
"Matter" is safely tucked in under MOQ as Inorganic Patterns of
Value (IPoV , consequently "Mind" cannot be allowed to roam
freely in its original (SOM) significance. Pirsig said (in a
letter to Anthony McWatt) that "mind" is a term better not used to
avoid misunderstandings, but how can such an ubiquitious word be
dropped? It has to find its place in the MOQ system and this
meaning must be sanctioned so that we avoid the same procedure for
each discussion subject and for each newcomer to the discussion.
What Diana said about atoms (and Texans) is sensible enough - as is
Magnus' words - for those having been with LS from the start, but it
raises some eyebrows obviously.
Again: Ken uses sentience in the classical: "mankind's awakening
to consciousness about the objective world" context, but SOM's
"mind out of darkness" has no Quality meaning, it must be
transformed or it will haunt us forever. Pirsig claims that SOM is a
smaller vessel contained by the greater MOQ so the above "awakening"
MUST find a Q-equivalent. To speak about sentient and insentient
quality will lead us nowhere except back to SOM.
A while ago I introduced the SAIOM idea (SOM as Intellect of MOQ).
Magnus accepted it in its original form and after a little
modification did Hugo find it compatible with his own ideas (so
did Donny I believe?) while Horse and Richard are doubtful. Anthony
has not responded to the last version. The modification is SOTAQI
(S-O thinking as Q-Intellect) which means that Q-Intellect
(generally) is the ability of an idividual (biological organism) to
view itself as different from other (society) and thereby give rise
to the subject-object intuition which in time grew into the
S-O-METAPHYSICS.
According to this idea are "consciousness", "awareness",
"intelligence" and all other mind-evoking expressions (sedimented
from the primordial S-O abstraction) collectively the Q-Intellect.
There is no awareness at the Inorganic level or consciousness
at the Biological level, but please note: those terms aren't the
"supernatural" capabilities of SOM, but (merely) the highest
value-patterns.
Still "Quality is Reality" so valueing goes on at all levels. Atoms
aren't matter particles passively reacting to natural laws, but moral
entities valueing Inorganic quality. And so on up through the
Q-hierarchy.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST